1) Singapore is slowly getting more democratic in some senses of the word, but – and it will probably surprise you to hear this – this is not necessarily a good thing. I think what I say here has bearing not just for Singapore, but also all the countries where you the Fellows and others in this audience come from.
2) How is Singapore democratising? Socially, we have much more freedom than in the past. More than before, you can now live your private life as you think fit without the government telling you what to do. People with long hair used to be turned away at the airport, including one pop star called Cliff Richard. You were served last at government counters. Now it doesn’t matter if you keep your hair long or short, dyed or shaped, or if you are bald. Despite retaining the law against consensual sex between adult men – another one of those “symbolic” laws that we have, which for me is symbolic, if it is symbolic of anything, of silliness and lack of moral courage to lead – despite this law, you have been promised that you won’t be persecuted for being homosexual like you once were.
3) The Internet is a key factor behind Singapore’s democratisation. It is transforming the media landscape in Singapore and therefore ultimately its politics and society. After spending quite a few weeks in Singapore, you would know by now, if you hadn’t already before, that the regulation and control of the media of old have been rendered somewhat meaningless by the emergence of the Internet. Now, people can say things than they couldn’t before, and they can do so publicly, share it with anyone else who cares to listen and – this is important – do so on record. I should qualify this by saying “some” things, because many of the draconian laws haven’t changed, laws which are not directly concerned with the media, laws such as defamation, contempt of the judiciary, the lack of freedom to associate and form societies, the absence of the right to hold protests. Then there is a third layer of control in the overwhelming power held by the government in everything from business to the arts, education and the unions.
4) Why am I afraid of democracy? This is especially strange since in my work as a policy researcher, playwright and arts activist, I have been arguing for more democracy, for more freedom of expression and action, and for the voices of the people to be allowed to be heard, either individually or together as people with common interests and concerns. My fear of democracy is that of someone who wants and advocates for democracy not someone who is against it.
5) Why the fear? Some speak of the four pillar institutions of democracy, namely, the Executive, Judiciary, Media and Legislature. Amartya Sen identifies seven main pillars of the architecture of democracy, namely: elections, political tolerance, the rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralisation and civil society. There are, of course, many other definitions of democracy. However they all seem to lack the human element: to be really democratic you need not just institutions and mechanisms and rights, you also need to have “democratic” people. I mean people with mindsets, dispositions and behaviours that are democratic. It means among other things, people who not only are informed and want to be informed about current affairs but who are also equipped with the mental tools such as philosophy, politics and science that help them make sense of a complex world. It means people who are interested not just in themselves but others around them, who care not just for their own welfare but that of wider society and the whole world. It means people who believe in fairness and justice and human dignity and equal rights, and when this does not exist for others even if it does for themselves, will try to do something about it – people, that is, who can put themselves in the shoes of others. It means people who will look out for the weak and dispossessed, and will do something when these are used and abused. It means people whose centre of the universe is not just “I” or their immediate family.
6) A democratic people is the real guard for democracy: In all the failed democracies or democracies in form but not in substance, it is the people who are ultimately at fault. And it will be a democratic people who will make sure that the wrong is made right, and if almost everything is wrong, to stand and overthrow these empty democracies and turn them into real ones.
7) I contend that Singapore is not ready for democracy because we are not a democratic people. We have not had the right kind of education and our society has not encouraged this kind of thinking and doing. I am afraid of freedom, of democracy in the hands this kind of people. In such a milieu they will end up creating a mimic democracy, a democracy based on “me, me, ME”– a “memocracy”.
8) Note for instance the xenophobia and racism that have emerged with the Internet, “emerged” first in the sense that there is now a place to express them where there was none before, and second in the sense that these forms of loathing are self-reinforcing, gaining momentum because of voices encouraging and emboldening one another. I am not saying that there are no better voices against this prejudice, this hate. But that seems to be about as far as we will go. Why for instance is there no rally in Hong Lim Park saying “We welcome the Filipinos” or “We welcome the Chinese, the Indians, the Vietnamese, the Burmese, the Pakistanis and the Thais”, or at least one saying “It is not your fault you are here”?
9) I see it in my work as an arts activist too. You would think that the artists, being what they are, would be one of the most engaged communities possible, that we would stand up not just for ourselves but for each other. But the sad truth is that the engaged artist is in a minority. I would even say a tiny minority.
10) To be sure, there are the exceptions as I have noted. There is the brave person who shouts “xenophobe” when she sees one. Or the artist who takes a stand for the right against the expedient even if it means getting his grant cut or being blacklisted or getting into all kinds of subtle and sometimes not too subtle inconveniences that is our lot. We must pay homage to them. But in a true democracy, in one where the people are democratic, they would not be in a minority or of the fringe, but in the majority and of the mainstream.
11) What is there to do? We must overhaul our minds. I am very pessimistic about the older generation because attitudes and philosophies are hard to change once you reach adulthood. The difficulty really is not just that people don’t know. It is that they really don’t want to know, and even more tragic, that they really don’t care to know. The discussion involved in making and sustaining democracy is something totally alien to them, like a foreign language. And other people’s desire to want to have that discussion is totally incomprehensible to them, like the unfathomable yearning of a different species. The deficiency of our ignorance pales in comparison to the blight of our indifference.
12) There are two things that need to be done. First, catch them when they are young. Give them an education and an outlook to life that is not instrumental and not just economic. Open up their minds. Steep them in culture and the arts. Teach them history, sociology, philosophy. Do not be afraid if they ask questions, indeed encourage them. Do not hammer them down to the level as the other nails, but enter into a dialogue with them. In other words, open the possibility to them of living flourishing lives.
13) Second, enrich society by opening up spaces. It is not just about freedoms, as I have said. It is also about attitudes. Do away with further rhetoric about instrumentalism. Tell them that wealth and health, security and infrastructure are good, but they are not ends in themselves, but stepping stones to something else, to leading a cultured, a creative, an individually and socially engaged, in other words, a fully human life.
14) There are many things to admire about Singapore: its affluence, its cleanliness, its almost science fiction infrastructure. But from the insider’s perspective, let me say that it looks, indeed feels, more like a shell than something of living teeming substance. To paraphrase the late great Gabriel Garcia Marquez, we Singaporeans have a lot of money, but that is not the same as being rich.
The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies. This is a speech he gave at a recent roundtable at the Asian Journalism Fellowship titled New Directions For Singapore held on 8 May 2014. The Fellowship is supported by Temasek Foundation and Nanyang Technological University, and brings together mid-career journalists from the continent to sharpen their professional skills and deepen their understanding of trends shaping their profession.
Photo credits: The Real Singapore Facebook